Peter Constable petercon at
Thu Sep 4 18:18:11 CEST 2008

Well, on July 30 and then again on Aug 2, Mark submitted forms that had “zh-Latn”. On Aug 25 Mark submitted forms with “zh” and on Aug 26 Michael said “I approve”. It is not yet two weeks since the submission of forms with “zh” – the mandatory review period extends to Sept 8; so it would be premature for Michael to have already approved the requests submitted on Aug 25. If those are already being processed with IANA, then I think there are valid grounds for objection – and I would object.


From: ietf-languages-bounces at [mailto:ietf-languages-bounces at] On Behalf Of Phillips, Addison
Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2008 7:59 AM
To: Michael Everson; ietflang IETF Languages Discussion

I’m confused here.

On August 26th Michael approved both pinyin and wadegile as subtags. I specifically asked if this was formal approval and he replied that it was, in fact, formal approval.

I would assume that he approved the then current registration request, but I gather that the Prefix field subsequently caused him to reconsider. Mark later that day submitted the current “R3” form.

Michael, do you NOT approve of the R3 form—the one we are currently considering, which contains only the prefix ‘zh’? Would you approve of one that includes both Prefix fields? Mark, are you withdrawing the R3 request in favor of a zh-latn request? If so, you should do so now, because Michael can only (as I understand the rules) pronounce on a submitted request… and that is the request currently being considered.

I also note that one course of action is specifically prohibited: the prefix ‘zh’ cannot be *replaced* with the prefix ‘zh-latn’ (a narrowing). It can be supplemented with an additional prefix ‘zh-Latn’ (or ‘cmn-*’), but it can’t be replaced.


Addison Phillips
Globalization Architect -- Lab126

Internationalization is not a feature.
It is an architecture.

From: ietf-languages-bounces at [mailto:ietf-languages-bounces at] On Behalf Of Michael Everson
Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2008 1:43 AM
To: ietflang IETF Languages Discussion

On 4 Sep 2008, at 01:21, Peter Constable wrote:

As you say, he may reject something based on a single *compelling* opinion, and that may happen to be his own; but IMO he must use that veto ability very carefully so as to avoid conflict of interest: if indeed he alone voices an objecting opinion against several others on the list, it would need to be compelling indeed! The issue he raises in this case is, IMO, far from compelling.

The issue? Peter, please be clear when you write. Which issue? "The issue" I raised is that "pinyin" and "wadegile" are by default Latin because there are no other possiblities of interpretation. Is that "the issue" to which you refer? Because I don't believe you have demonstrated that what I have said is incorrect. Nor have you demonstrated how your position (that "Latn" must be included) is "compelling".

Michael Everson *<>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...

More information about the Ietf-languages mailing list